Skip to Content

Fee Arrangements for IP Litigation

Contingency Fee Arrangements with Our Intellectual Property Law Firm

Intellectual property litigation can be expensive depending on which intellectual property law firm you choose.  Patent cases, for example, with claims worth between $10 million and $25 million can cost several million dollars to litigate.  And, most patent cases now involve parallel proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, which themselves can each cost another $200,000-$400,000 per patent.  As a result, many patent holders are interested in finding a patent contingency attorney to handle their case.  

In patent cases, we seek to share risk with our clients, including working on a partial or full contingency basis.  This aligns the interest of lawyer and client.  Usually, we ask our patent litigation clients to pay the out-of-pocket costs, including for expert work and Patent Trial and Appeal Board counsel.  Sometimes, hourly fee arrangements are in the client’s best interest, so we handle matters on an hourly basis as well.  Clients are sometimes well-served by litigation financing, and we can assist with seeking it where appropriate. Pharmaceutical patents (drug patents), medical patents, medical device patents, surgical device patents, surgical instrument patents, therapeutic patents, chemical patents, optical patents (optics patents), biotechnology patents (biotech patents), life science patents, consumer product patents, industrial process patents, mechanical patents, agriculture patents, consumer technology patents, and household patents can be particularly well suited to contingency and financing arrangements.

Fees in copyright and trade secret cases can also run into the millions of dollars.  We also provide contingency representation for these intellectual property areas. 

Our intellectual property law firm also handle cases arising out of the inappropriate assertion of intellectual property.  Such cases include, for example, a pharmaceutical company that prevents generic competition through patents that do not actually apply to the drug, or a company demanding licensing fees for copyrights it does not own.  Such cases can be well-suited for contingency representation.  If you believe you have been subjected to illegal licensing demands, please contact IP litigation lawyers Jonathan Rotter or Kara Wolke.

IP Litigation

Get In Touch

Disclaimer: By providing my phone number to Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, I agree and acknowledge that Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP may send text messages to my wireless phone number for any purpose. Message and data rates may apply. Message frequency will vary, and you will be able to Opt-out by replying “STOP.” For more information on how your data will be handled please visit https://www.glancylaw.com/privacy-policy/.

New Cases & Investigations
—

If you would like to learn more or become a part of any of our cases

Join Case Now

Court Recognition

“And without question, the Court is of the opinion that the value of benefit that’s been conferred to the class is extremely sizable and that this Court is certainly aware that the skill and efficiency of plaintiff’s counsel is what attributed to this settlement, and they are learned securities counsel. The Court is mindful of that, and as a result they were able to sort of weed their way through the complex issues in this case, and also to bring this about — bring about a settlement rather in short order as these matters go. So the Court certainly attributes that to counsel’s skill and efficiency, as well as the ability to work with the adversaries in this matter.”

–Hon. Susan D. Wigention, U.S. District Judge, District of New Jersey

“Class Counsel has conducted the litigation and achieved the Settlement in good faith and with skill, perseverance and diligent advocacy”

— Hon. Donovan W. Frank, U.S. District Judge, District of Minnesota

“The court finds that the Settlement Fund… created by Class Counsel is an exceptional result… The settlement is significantly above the average securities class action settlement when measured as a percentage of losses recovered… The court finds that Class Counsel, particularly Co-Lead Counsel, exerted tremendous effort on behalf of the class in the prosecution of this action… The Court finds that Class Counsel skillfully prosecuted this action, particularly given that this case was unusually complex relative to most securities fraud class actions. ”

–Hon. Dickran M. Tevrizian (Ret.), U.S. District Court Judge, Central District of California

More Testimonials